Category: Kuei-Jung Ni

GM Food Labeling: An Unfinished Battle

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Kuei-Jung Ni

In Washington state, a proposal (Initiative 522) to require labeling of genetically modified (GM) or engineered (GE) foods was defeated recently by votes of 45.17% in favor and 54.83% against. The state law would have implemented mandatory labeling requirements on food composed of 0.9% or more of GM ingredients, measured by weight. Prospects for passage of the proposal were quite promising when it was first introduced. But, the scenario shifted when GM food companies, including General Mills, Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Monsanto, etc., launched a multi-million dollar advertisement campaign challenging the justification for GM labeling.

The downfall of the proposal, while disappointing consumer groups, is not likely to stop the labeling movement. Actually, there have been many other attempts to regulate GM foods on a state level. California Proposition 37, which would have imposed labeling requirements similar to the Washington proposal, was put to a vote last year, but failed to pass. According to Just Label It, a NGO, more than 20 state laws were introduced about GM labeling this year.

Many scientists trust the safety of GM foods, and the benefits brought by the development of GM agriculture are obvious. GM crop production can reduce the use of pesticides and enhance yields. By contrast, in addition to possible new allergies caused by the consumption of GM foods, some worry about their potential harm to the environment and ecological system. On the federal level, three agencies are competent to regulate GM crops and foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which use existing rules to regulate. Yet, the inadequacy of their oversight has been disclosed. Until now, no specific federal law has been enacted to regulate GM food production and consumption.

Read More

Government Shutdown Compromises Food Safety

kjni Leave a comment

By Kuei-Jung Ni

It has been over a week since the federal government shutdown started on October 1 and concerns over food safety due to the lack of essential food inspections have increased. The impasse on the budget constitutes a big challenge facing federal agencies responsible for monitoring food safety and protecting the public from such risks.

There are mainly three units managing food safety at the federal level: (1) the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); (2) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (3) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). FSIS is responsible for supervising the production of meat, poultry, and eggs. FDA regulates non-meat food safety. CDC aims to control and prevent foodborne illnesses. In response to the shutdown, according to the New York Times’ report, there was no coherent decision among the agencies about to what extent competent officials will keep working. The discrepancy will affect the efficiency of coordination and communication between the organs.

Although states remain functional to oversee local food safety, foodborne disease outbreaks or other food safety emergencies at a multi-state or national level would be a serious health problem as centralized coordination and federal support would be lacking. The recent ongoing Salmonella outbreak that has inflected 278 people in 17 states raises a grave worry about whether the government shutdown will make the situation worse. It was reported that CDC will continue to investigate and watch the diseases and has decided to bring 30 employees back from furlough. Yet, it seems unreasonable and unsustainable to require staffs to maintain the same quality of performance without pay. The shortage of sufficient professional workers will also cast a doubt on whether potential and new outbreaks can be detected and investigated in a timely way.

Another critical issue relating to food safety and security is the delay of inspections on imported food. FDA has halted services, among others, on the monitoring of imported foods and drugs. Considering that about 15 percent of American food supply is imported, the potential risks here are quite substantial.

The Response of WTO Members toward the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s 50th Anniversary

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Kuei-Jung Ni

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) that governs the making of international standards on food safety will reach its 50th anniversary in October 2013. The international institution was established in 1963 under the auspice of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Its mandate is to approve food standards with a view to ensuring food safety and promoting food trade by harmonizing national food regulations. As of 2013, the Codex consists of 186 members.

Compliance with Codex standards used to be on a voluntary basis; the standards initially gave nations guidance in building up their food safety regulatory regimes without exerting legally binding force. However, the status of the standards has been drastically changed in the wake of the effectiveness of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. That agreement explicitly requires WTO members to base their SPS measures on international standards, including those of Codex, and gives national measures that comply with Codex standards a presumption of SPS-consistency. Since then, the Codex has gained much weight, especially in the determination of the legality of WTO members’ disputable measures.

From a global governance perspective, WTO and Codex institutionally should be in a cozy and mutually supportive relationship. Thus, it is not surprising to see the SPS Committee of the WTO, at its recent session, send the Codex a quite polite and encouraging message, calling for continued support for the body, and for trade measures to be based on science. The US, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belize, Russia, Chile, Senegal, the EU, Burkina Faso, Pakistan, Switzerland, Norway, South Africa, Argentina, Dominican Rep, China, Cuba and Lebanon (a WTO observer) echoed the key message mainly articulated by Brazil in praise of Codex’s work.

Yet, not all WTO members were overwhelmed by the message. In particular, the European Union (EU), even while it agreed that the tasks of the Codex are significant, maintained that Codex standards are not one size fits all, and emphasized that countries still have the right to adopt appropriate measures that deviate from Codex. Read More

Introducing Guest Blogger Kuei-Jung Ni

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

Kuei-Jung Ni will be a contributor at Bill of Health during his time as a Visiting Scholar at the Petrie-Flom Center in the 2013-2014 academic year. His current research explores the systems of governmental food safety regulation in the United States and Europe, with the goal of developing a suitable regulatory system for the Taiwanese government. Ni is visiting the Center with support from a Fulbright grant and the Top University Strategic Alliance (TUSA) of Taiwan.

Professor Ni holds an LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and a Ph.D. in Law from the University of Edinburgh School of Law. He is currently on leave from his role as Professor and Director at the Center for Technology Law, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.